Pope Honorius I (died 12 October 638)[1] was thebishop of Rome from 27 October 625 to his death on 12 October 638. He was active in spreading Christianity amongAnglo-Saxons and attempted to convince theCelts tocalculate Easter in the Roman fashion. He is chiefly remembered for his correspondence with PatriarchSergius I of Constantinople over the latter'smonothelite teachings. Honorius was posthumouslyanathematized, initially for subscribing to monothelitism, and later only for failing to end it. The anathema against Honorius I became one of the central arguments against the doctrine ofpapal infallibility.
Honorius was a rich aristocrat who came fromCampania. His father was the consul Petronius. Nothing is known about Honorius I's career before hebecame pope on 27 October 625. He wasconsecrated only two days after the death of his predecessor,Boniface V. Thevacancy was short probably because of the presence in Rome ofIsaac the Armenian, who was empowered toconfirm the election as the imperialexarch in Italy.[2]
Honorius became involved in early discussions regarding the doctrine ofMonothelitism, which is the teaching that Christ has only one energy and one will, in contrast with the teaching that he has two energies and two wills, both human and divine.[3] PatriarchSergius I of Constantinople wrote an initial letter informing Honorius of themonoenergism controversy, asking Honorius to endorse a position that Church unity should not be endangered by having any discussions or disputes over Christ's possessing one energy or two. Sergius added that the doctrine of two energies could lead to the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills.[4] Pope Honorius's reply in 635 endorsed this view that all discussions over energies should cease, and agreed that Jesus does not have two conflicting wills, but one will, since Jesus did not assume the vitiated human nature tainted byAdam's fall, but human nature as it existed prior to Adam's fall.[5]
Honorius however did not endorse Monothelitism as his latter accusers would charge him. Rather it was known in the west that he was not aMonothelite and his secretary and author of the letter, the Abbot John, testified that"When we spoke of a single will in the Lord, we did not have in view His double nature, divine and human, but His humanity only .... We meant that Jesus Christ did not have two contrary wills, that is to say one of the flesh and one of the spirit, as we ourselves have on account of sin, but that, with regard to His humanity, He had but one natural will."[6]
Pope John IV, Honorius's near immediate successor, also noted that Honorius spoke"only of the human and not also of the divine nature" when commenting on Honorius's use of the phrase "one will". StMaximus the Confessor is another notable figure who rose to the defense of Honorius's orthodoxy. In writing about Pope Honorius, VenerableBede notes his constant sanctity, a pointRobert Bellarmine does not fail to notice and amplify in saying,
For, that Bede considered Honorius to be a holy man, also after his death, is clear both from book 2, chapters 17–19 in his history of the English people, where he often speaks about Honorius as an excellent pastor, and from the life of the Abbot St. Bertolfus, where he calls Honorius, now blessed, now holy, and among other things he also says:Honorius was a venerable bishop, wise in his thinking, strong in giving counsel, clear in doctrine, distinguished for his sweetness and humility. And after that:The holy Pope offered the desired office to the mentioned father Bertolfus, namely, the privileges of the apostolic See, inasmuch as none of the bishops in the previously mentioned cloister attempted to rule in any way. These are Bede’s words about Honorius; certainly he would not have said such things, if he considered him to be a condemned heretic, as the adversaries claim.[7]
Honorius was apparently aware of therise of Islam and viewed this religion's tenets as closely resembling those ofArius.[8]
In theThird Council of Constantinople on 16 September 681,[9] the monothelites wereanathematized by name "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" in the XIII session. Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorius was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines; the XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics explicitly stating "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!",[10][11] and concluding with the decree of the XVII session that Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius".[12] The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation.[1]
Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council commended it for it had "perfectly preached the definition of the true faith"[13] and made reference to the condemnation of his predecessor:[14]
We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is,Theodore, Bishop of Pharan,Sergius,Pyrrhus,Paul, andPeter, betrayers rather thanleaders of theChurch of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.[12]
Within the year a Latin translation of the Acts of the council had been disseminated and signed by the Bishops throughout the West. The condemnation of Pope Honorius was reiterated by Pope Leo's successors and[15] subsequent councils,[16] and was included in Breviary lessons up until the eighteenth century. As a result, Honorius would later be the subject of vigorous attacks by opponents ofpapal infallibility in the discussions surrounding theFirst Vatican Council of 1870.[1]
In contemporary times, there has been an attempt to re-evaluate the case of Honorius I, both because of the historiographical controversy that it generated during the First Vatican Council due to the debates on the definition of papal infallibility (since many opponents argued that the existence of a heretic Pope would contradict suchCatholic dogma), as well as because of the possibility of achieving his rehabilitation (being freed from his anathema if it's proven that he didn't believe in the Monothelite heresy and it was a historical misunderstanding). That Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of monothelitism has given rise to much discussion, andJohn B. Bury argues that the most reasonable conclusion is that Honorius did not really apprehend the point at issue, considering it more a question of grammar than theology, for he placed "one energy" and "two energies" on exactly the same footing; in Bury's words, "it was for the 'imprudent economy of silence' that he was condemned".[17]Louis Nazaire Bégin, havingImprimatur from theCatholic Church, argued in the same way and even stated that Honorius wasn't a "formal heretic", only being probably a "material heretic" (or even only negligent but stillorthodox)[18] by tolerating Monothelite heresy instead of believing and teaching it, so his condemn was based in the guilty ofnegligence and could be liberated of anyExcommunication in the Anathema.[19]
In his first letter [to Sergius, Pope Honorius] he repeats several times that "the Scriptures clearly demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the same one who works in divine and human things"; that "Jesus Christ works in both natures, divine and human." Nothing could be clearer or more obvious. The heresy is immediately overthrown. It is therefore evident that Honorius confesses in Jesus Christ not only two natures, but also two wills and two operations. Thus, this Pontiff professes Catholic truth in his letters; he only rejects the new words used to express it, and this for reasons of prudence, so as not to appear to favorNestorianism orEutychianism, and also because Sergius astutely portrayed these new expressions as causing trouble in the Church and an obstacle to the return of theMonosophysites to orthodoxy.
... I do not deny the condemnation; on the contrary, I accept it according to what I said a moment ago; but I distinguish the word "heretic," which is quite imprecise and was even more so at the time of the councils in question. It designated not only those who knowingly and obstinately professed heresy, but also those who benefited from it in any way, whether by their silence and negligence when their responsibilities required them to act, by defending people or writings of heretics, or even by their communication with these heretics, or by having unwittingly accepted their doctrines.
... From this I conclude that Honorius could have been condemned as a heretic by these three councils, and that he in fact was, not for having taught error, but solely for not having exercised the necessary vigor in his duties as Head of the Church, for not having vigorously used his authority to suppress heresy, for having prescribed silence on the manner of expressing a truth, and thus having contributed to the spread of error.
This is the same conclusion reached by almost all those who dealt with this question during the Vatican Council.Dom Guéranger, Abbot of the Benedictines of Solesmes, said on this subject: “The true Sixth Council, the one to which the Roman Pontiff gave the necessary and canonical form, the one that requires the respect of the faithful, condemned Honorius only as an unfaithful guardian of the deposit of faith, but not as if he himself had been an adept of heresy. Justice and truth forbid us to go further.”
— FatherLouis Nazaire Bégin, La Primauté et l’Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes (1873)
^Ata Ur-Rahim, Thomson 2003, p. 148., quote: "Pope Honorius was aware of the rising tide of Islam, whose tenets very much resembled those ofArius. The mutual killing of Christians by each other was still fresh in his memory, and perhaps he thought that what he had heard about Islam might be applied in healing the differences between the various Christian sects. In his letters he began to support the doctrine of 'one mind' within the doctrine of Trinity. He argued that if God had three independent minds, the result would be chaos. This logical and reasonable conclusion pointed to the belief in the existence of One God."
^George Ostrogorsky,History of the Byzantine State (Rutgers University Press, 1995), 127.
^Percival, Henry Robert (1900).The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (second series). Vol. XIV. James Parker & Co. p. 343. Retrieved9 September 2021.
^Mansi.Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Vol. XI. p. 622. Retrieved9 September 2021., quote: "[...] Sergio hæretico anathema, Cyro hæretico anathema,Honorio hæretico anathema, Pyrro hæretico anathema [...]"
.jpg)
